This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

SInce almost by definition, abortion is for unplanned pregnancies, the 'father' had no previous investment here. Didnt want a kid, didnt have that in mind. To decide after the fact is too late.

I think that the father's rights are a valid discussion tho...if you would like to explore it further, would you start a different thread?

I think we already have a few of those. And though I generally support the woman's right to kill her unborn (in the larger sense of societal rules/laws) I do feel the father should have the option to step up. If folks were really pro-choice they wouldn't take that choice away from the father either.

Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

4.) Or at least, in both cases, to the degree that laws are made supporting one or the other.

1.) ok whatcha got
2.) true because a personal choice to have an abortion and not be forced to risk ones life against their will, will be taken away
3.) 100% false because nothing will be forced, their personal choice will still be theirs to make, nobody will make it for them
4.) no see 3

its this simple

under pro-choice

person A who is pro-life gets to practice how they believe and their rights stay in tact
person B who is pro-choice gets to practice how they believe and their rights stay in tact

under pro-life

person A who is pro-life gets to practice how they believe and their rights stay in tact
person B who is pro-choice does NOT get to practice how they believe and their rights are infringed

so again the fact is notihing is forced on him and he doesnt have to accept anything

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.

Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Agent J is like that - he will not let you get away with leaving the discussion until you prove your point or admit you were wrong.

None of that equals baiting, flaming, or trolling, IMO.

You're polishing a turd. He won't leave a the discussion until he declares his opinions to be facts. Source all you want, he just denies and reiterates that his opinions are the facts. And if you come close to the reportable line, he changes tone and says stick to the topic right after repeating yet again, his opinions are the facts. It's a tried and true tactic and I'm prohibitted from calling it any of those things you just mentioned.

Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional

Originally Posted by clownboy

You're polishing a turd. He won't leave a the discussion until he declares his opinions to be facts. Source all you want, he just denies and reiterates that his opinions are the facts. And if you come close to the reportable line, he changes tone and says stick to the topic right after repeating yet again, his opinions are the facts. It's a tried and true tactic and I'm prohibitted from calling it any of those things you just mentioned.

so sticking to the topic you have a source and links to facts proving the facts i posted wrong? awesome,please post them now.

also please point out the opinions i called facts that factually are not.

Originally Posted by RamFel

Genetically human & human being is exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Hicup

homosexuality is objectively wrong, but because science tells me it is, not politics.